THE AUTHORITY OF CATHOLICISM
separate the authority of the Pope from that of the bishops
is to create a revolution in the Church, and turn both her
institutions and her doctrines upside down."1
How far such remonstrances could have been of any avail
had they remained strictly on theological or ecclesiastical
grounds may be doubted, but any effect they might have had
was destroyed by the admission of the opponents of Papal
absolutism that their attitude was not free from political
implications. " I am not a Liberal," says Maret, " but without
in any way approving modern theories, without condoning
revolutions, it must be admitted that there is not, in the society
that has sprung from the Gospel, a more compelling, more
lasting and more invincible tendency than that which wishes to
place limits on authority. And it would be in the midst of that
Christian society, so deeply moved by the need to regulate
authority, that the Holy See would proclaim as a new dogma
that God set up in His Church monarchy pure, absolute and
indivisible, as being the best form of government. Of what
advantage would it be for faith thus to place itself in direct
opposition to the surest data of experience? " 2
To reason thus was to court defeat. The surest way to ensure
the victory of infallibility was to admit that opposition thereto
was in some way connected with political Liberalism. Besides,
the bold remonstrance of the Bishop of Sura roused little echo
even among Liberals. Partly through a genuine desire not to
arouse passion, partly through sheer fear—" paralysed by a
dark terror," says Lecanuet—they kept silence during all these
months. Montalembert left the Correspondant and went into
what was to be his final retirement, and opponents of infalli-
bility in general made little use of the opportunities that
might still remain for a fresh resistance, before events had so
moved on that resistance would have appeared to be almost
rebellion.
The result of the Council soon became therefore a foregone
conclusion. We need not enter here into the history of the
1 Du Contile ginlral, ii., pp. 310-375. In spite of this bold reasoning Maret
ultimately submitted.
2 Ibid.) i., p. 384.
197